posted
I was just reading a thread when that phrase popped out at me. Is the human right the right to live? To speak freely? To be treated with respect and dignity? I'm not sure I truly understand what human rights are. Beyond the right to live, I don't believe that human rights should extend any further than that. Someone needs to explain this to me, because I don't believe I can work it out myself. You know when you think about something and the thoughts just end up spinning around your head with no real conclusion, but an undeserved sense of finality? Probably not, but please help.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
Keep in mind that "human rights" are not necessarily the same as "legal rights." Human rights, or moral rights, exist outside of institutions. Human rights are fundamentally important and held equally by all human beings unconditionally. Whether these exist or not is debateable. I'd say they do. But anyway.
One individual's rights indicate another person's duty. If I have the right to life, then you have the duty to not kill me.
Why do you say we shouldn't have rights? The statement confuses me.
Do you mean we shouldn't have absolute rights? If you do, then I will say there's no such thing as an absolute right. The closest to it would probably be the right to not be tortured...but even that gets tricky. Every right has its exceptions.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you're looking for an excellent discourse on rights, try Joel Feinberg's Social Philosophy. It was clear and eloquently worded. I almost wish I could have Feinberg write a brief for all of my philosophy classes.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Human rights are fundamentally important and held equally by all human beings unconditionally.
That would be my problem. There is no universally agreed upon "human right." We talk about it's abuses a lot, and the United Nations has a problem with them, but the bottom line is the rights humans have are decided upon by humans individually, and not everyone agrees that anyone has the right to do anything. So human rights are more of a pipe dream than a concrete law that's referenced all the time. Unless I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to have a quick run down on the "basic" human rights look at the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights .
In a way, you're right: in the absence of a world government no one can say "this is a right and everyone must agree". But there are certain rights that are accepted in customary international law, and the prohibition on abusing these rights is non-derogable. Examples include the prohibition on genocide and slavery.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're mixing up the difference between a LEGAL right and a HUMAN right.
Let's say that government of Country A decides that it doesn't need to allow a portion of its people access to any food for no reason. In Country A, these people have no legal right to food. Yet, other countries will intervene for the sake of these people. Why? After all, they have no legal right to food. Other people will look at this government and say that it is infringing on its people's right to life. The government has a duty to respect this right. If we have no human rights, then on what grounds can another country interfere with what Country A is doing?
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
imogen, just a question of clarification: Are you saying that human rights are mere customs? That there is no reason to have certain rights except tradition?
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Celaeno, the problem is that some countries/societies/civilizations do not recognize some things as rights that others do, or do not recognize that all people are equally entitled to them.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read their Declaration, and sounds nice, but I'm still wondering WHY we have these rights. Not so much what people say they are, but why we think that they are necessary. I want to know why a Declaration Of Human Rights had to be published. Babies have a "right to life" animals have the right to scurry or whatever they do and not be shampooed, and slaves have the right not to be slaves. Why?
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Celaeno, the problem is that some countries/societies/civilizations do not recognize some things as rights that others do, or do not recognize that all people are equally entitled to them.
KQ, that's kind of my point. There's a big difference between a legal right and a human right. And, you know, maybe a human right is too ideal. But if they're not based on human rights, what are legal rights based on?
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if they're not based on human rights, what are legal rights based on?
Ideally, they are based on human rights, or what are percieved as such. But sometimes, they are based on what serves the people in power best. (The cynical part of me wants to say all laws are, but I believe that in some systems of government that is not true, much as some people in power would like it to be.)
You can't assume a just and fair government everywhere. Or anywhere, really.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Legal rights serve those in power while human rights serve....humanity? Who decided that humans all had the right to be treated the same way?
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then KQ, I think we're in complete agreement. Legal rights should be based on human rights, but they aren't always.
You have a slightly more cynical view of the law than I do, but I can definitely see where you're coming from with that.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really think they don't. I realize that seems strange, but I can't come to terms with an ultimate exclusively human equality. It seems to fly in the face of natural selection.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Celaeno: imogen, just a question of clarification: Are you saying that human rights are mere customs? That there is no reason to have certain rights except tradition?
No, sorry for the confusion. I was using custom as in "customary international law" which is one of two forms of public international law. (The other is conventional international law - treaties). Customary international law is binding on all states (countries).
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
imogen, it's not your fault at all; it's just that I'm pretty ignorant when it comes to international law. Thanks for the clarification.
airmanfour, care to unpack that view a bit for us? How does natural selection fit into our modern world? Are you talking about natural selection in a purely physical way or are you also advocating social Darwinism?
And clod, I'll definitely take that pretzel. Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm a complete newbie. I registered in August, but I didn't really start posting regularly until last week. I like it here. I think I might stay for a bit.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I really think they don't. I realize that seems strange, but I can't come to terms with an ultimate exclusively human equality. It seems to fly in the face of natural selection.
I suppose that makes sense. I don't agree, but since my concept of "human rights" is based on the idea that we're all sons and daughters of God and created equal, we're not coming from the same place, so there's really no point in arguing it. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I just read their Declaration, and sounds nice, but I'm still wondering WHY we have these rights. Not so much what people say they are, but why we think that they are necessary.
Alan Dershowitz in Rights from Wrongs makes the argument that rights are what we need to keep atrocities from happening. His argument not only nicely answers 'why', but helps to answer 'what'.
The argument then devolves into what atrocities are, but answering that is actually one of the easiest ways for secularists to approach the problem of rights.
From his book:
quote:
Rights do not come from God because God does not speak to human beings in a single voice, and rights should exist even if there is no God
Rights do not come from nature, because nature is value-neutral.
Rights do not come from logic, because there is little consensus about the a priori premises from which rights may be deduced.
Rights do not come from law alone, because if they did, there would be no basis on which to judge a given legal system.
Rights come from human experience, particularly experience with injustice. We learn from the mistakes of history that a rights-based system and certain fundamental rights--such as freedom of expression, freedom of and from religion, equal protection of the laws, due process, and participatory democracy--are essential to avoid repetition of the grievous injustices of the past. Working from the bottom up, from a dystopian view of our experiences with injustice, rather than from the top down, from a utopian theory of perfect justice, we build rights on a foundation of trial, error, and our uniquely human ability to learn from our mistakes in order to avoid replicating them.
posted
its funny that we have to look, even at a religiously nuetral rational of rights like a list of bulleted commandments from the sky. How interesting
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read this thread last week, but didn't have time to reply. I think there're two points of confusion.
First, the 'human' in 'human rights' has absolutely nothing to do with who decides what those rights are, any more than animals have a say in 'animal rights'. The 'human' implies who the rights apply to. So 'human rights' is a concept that essentially says that there are certain rights held by every human being. Of course, people disagree as to what those rights are.
quote:Legal rights serve those in power while human rights serve....humanity? Who decided that humans all had the right to be treated the same way?
quote:I really think they don't. I realize that seems strange, but I can't come to terms with an ultimate exclusively human equality. It seems to fly in the face of natural selection.
The concept of human rights asserts neither that all humans have the right to be treated the same way nor that all humans are completely equal. It does imply that all humans are equal in certain areas, such as all humans are equally worthy of being accorded these basic rights (whatever they may be). Even given that all humans have the same basic set of rights, it is not required that all humans be treated equally. What is required is that within the context of these rights, all humans must have equal consideration.
For example, a man who is paralyzed from the waist down has the same human rights as a woman with fully-functioning limbs. Yet if 'equal access' was considered a human right (not saying it is, just posing a hypothetical), then the paralyzed man would require different treatment (access to a ramp/elevator) than the woman would need.
So 'human rights' doesn't imply that all people are the same or should be treated the same. It just says that in certain areas, all people deserve equal consideration.
Am I making sense?
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
